Monday, June 30, 2014

Across the web, worshipers or touters of high IQ- assorted "HBD" and/or "hereditarian" types -lament the seeming dominance of liberals, the decline of traditional values, and an America that is "coming apart." What they don't seem to realize is that they are hoist on their own petard. The patterns they lament are well associated with the high IQ they worship. How so you ask? Like so, pilgrim..

Liberalism linked with higher IQs. If higher cognitive patterns are the mark of the future, then some data shows that the trending is for more liberalism, lack of religious faith and more homosexuality. This is linked with higher IQ folk supposedly having a penchant for the novel and unexpected. Such novelty is what "selects" for higher IQ per much hereditarian/HBD dogma. Some HBD data seems to support these patterns among higher IQ folk.

For example, liberal “non-judgmentalism” is quite on track- for those identified as liberal seem to have higher IQs than non-liberals. According to hereditarianism and “racial reality” favorite Satoshi Kanazawa (2010), intelligent people tend to have values novel in human evolutionary history, as compared to somewhat squarer, conservative types who tend to have lower IQs. Kanazawa 2010 (Why Liberals and atheists are more intelligent) reports that that the mean adolescent intelligence of young adults who identify
themselves as "very liberal" is 106.4, while that of those who identify
themselves as "very conservative" is 94.8.[103] This 12 point gap is almost as big as the B/W gap and bigger than the Asian-white gap. Two other studies conducted in the UK reached similar conclusions (Deary et al 2008).

Homosexuality linked with higher IQs. The “evolutionary” preference for the novel and unexpected tracks well not only with with more liberal, non-traditional types, but mayhaps even “fabulous” types. Interestingly enough- some data show that gays on the average have higher IQs that straights- perhaps a reflection of that supposed taste for the “novel.” (See for example: John P. De Cecco, Michael G. Shively (1984) Bisexual and homosexual identities: critical theoretical issues.)

Some studies (Rogers and Turner 1991) report higher rates of homosexual activity among whites than blacks. Remafedi, Resnic Blum and Harris (1992) also find same sex attraction some 3 times higher in Whites than Blacks. Yet another study confirms white trending in homosexuality. A National AIDS Behavioral Survey study (NABS), reported by Binson et al (1995) shows that 9.1% of white men, 3.1% of Black men, 2.7 percent of Hispanic men, and 2.3 percent of Asian/other had had same-sex action. In essence whites were 3 times more likely than blacks to be engaging in homosexual acts. Indeed, the NABS study oversampled Black and Hispanic men but still showed higher rates of white activity. In another study based on vascular risk factors Krieger and Sidney (1997) reported white women and men were more likely to have had homosexual or bisexual contact than either black men or black women. In essence whites were twice as likely to be engaged in homosexual behavior than blacks. Reflecting attitudinal patterns, Ernst et al (1991) found that blacks were more likely than whites to endorse negative statements about homosexuality. In the military, one research study found that white women are three times more likely to be discharged for homosexuality than African American women and white men are two times more likely to be discharged for homosexuality than African American men (Belkin and Bateman 2003)(REFS: Remafedi, Resnic Blum and Harris (1992) Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents. Pediatrics. 1992 Apr;89(4 Pt 2):714-21; Remafedi, Resnic Blum and Harris (1992) Demography of sexual orientation in adolescents. Pediatrics. 1992 Apr;89(4 Pt 2):714-21; Krieger and Sidney (1997) Prevalence and health implications of anti-gay discrimination. Int J Health Serv. 1997;27(1):157-76; Rust 2000, Bisexuality in the United States; Krieger and Sidney (1997) Prevalence and health implications of anti-gay discrimination. Int J Health Serv. 1997;27(1):157-76. Belkin and Bateman 2003. Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Debating the Gay Ban in the Military)

"The Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, derived from the Savanna Principle and a theory of the evolution of general intelligence, suggests that more intelligent individuals are more likely to acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel preferences and values than less intelligent individuals, but general intelligence has no effect on the acquisition and espousal of evolutionarily familiar preferences and values. Ethnographies of traditional societies suggest that exclusively homosexual behaviour was probably rare in the ancestral environment, so the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely to identify themselves as homosexual and engage in homosexual behaviour. Analyses of three large, nationally representative samples (two of which are prospectively longitudinal) from two different nations confirm the prediction."
-- --Kanazawa, Satoshi. 2012. INTELLIGENCE AND HOMOSEXUALITY. Journal of Biosocial Science, 2012, Vol.44(5), pp.595-623

What about the Irish who historically have had lower IQs vis a vis the English - and also a staunchly Catholic country, traditionally? Shouldn't they show less favor towards homosexuality or homosexual rights? Not necessarily. The Irish (2015) recently became the first nation to approve same sex marriage by popular vote.This was no mere matter of higher appearance by "liberals." Electoral officers reported stronger-than-usual turnout at many stations
in schools, church halls and pubs across the nation of 3.2 million
registered voters.
The margin of victory was solid. It should be noted that Irish IQ has been rising in recent decades and now it is within the range of the EU average. Historically, low average Irish IQ has been noted by well known IQ researcher Hans Eysenck, in his 1971 book “Race, Intelligence, & Education.” Eysenck held that the Irish IQ was very close to that of American blacks, and that the Irish/English IQ gap was almost exactly the same size as the black/white gap in the U.S., being roughly a full standard deviation. Hereditarian author Richard Lynn also found low Irish IQ in his 1972 study of Irish school children- see IQ and the Wealth of Nations, published in 2001 by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen.

Recent analyses by author Ron Unz however now show Irish IQs approaching that of the British- 95% of the 100 "norm" in 2000 and 92% in 2012 (Unz 2012). Support for same sex marriage is not the same as increased homosexuality. But attitudes and practices have been rapidly changing in Ireland, as the country became more integrated with the EU and IQs began to rise. In 1993 numerous measures (seldom enforced) criminalizing homosexuality were taken off the books. As early as 2008 a survey by the Irish times showed that fully 63 percent of Irish people supported same-sex marriage. Civil partnerships have been the law since 2010, made so by legislative action. In the 1980s there were even liturgical celebrations specifically for those of the homosexual community, and the Irish Gay and Lesbian Equality Network (GLEN) became an inspiration for gay rights movements internationally. (Occasions of Sin: Sex and Society in Modern Ireland, By Diarmaid Ferriter 2010). The 2015 popular vote was thus a continuation of trends gathering speed years earlier as the Irish became more educated. Homosexuality has expanded likewise for a long time, from the vibrant gay scene in major cities like Dublin and Cork, to fulsome acceptance in other major urban areas, though a residue of opposition still remains, particularly in rural areas. Hence one again sees the patterns spoken of here emerge as IQs rise.

This HBD data above does not cover all the studies, and of course does not apply to every single white person in the US, but it does raise a question. If higher IQ whites are trending more homosexual, could this gay trend therefore represent a higher step up of white evolution? These are indeed the questions HBDers say they are asking- brave questions "which few dare ask" they say, and so on. OK, let's use their "IQ Supreme" model for a moment. Given the higher IQ trends, do more homosexuals represent an advance in white evolution? Could this not be another argument for gay marriage- the need to encourage such a high IQ sub-population rather than discourage them? Aren't more white homosexuals a natural and expected outcome of the "IQ Supreme" model? And shouldn't this evolutionary trend be celebrated rather than lamented?

Less religious faith/more atheism linked with higher IQs. In addition, the higher IQ people also tend to be more atheist, or more skeptical, or weaker in religious faith. Zuckerman 2013's meta-analysis found 'a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity' in 53 out of 63 studies. What this boils down to, on the average, is that smarter people tend to be less religious, and this includes atheists. (Zukerman et al, 2013. The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations', 'Personality and Social Psychology Review'). The authors claim that even during early years, the more intelligent a child is the more likely it would be to turn away from religion. A 2009 study of white American youth came to the same overall conclusion - atheists scored an average of 1.95 IQ points higher than agnostics, 3.82 points higher than liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than dogmatic persuasions (Nyborg(2009). "The intelligence–religiosity nexus: A representative study of white adolescent Americans". Intelligence 37: 81–93.)

In short, people at the higher end of the Bell Curve would tend to reject or despise faith more, or be less serious/more eclectic. They are the celebrated folk with high IQs, and, (not surprisingly) they also tend to be more liberal or left-leaning, or more extreme overall, and let us not forget the collectivist orienation in "National Socialism" - the Nazis.

Paragons of racial evolution?

More intense political extremism and violence- linked with higher IQ volk. Consider the highly efficient murder methods of those high IQ Germans for example that gave us the holocaust. On the flip side is the left wing version- Marxism, which gave us the mass murder of Comrade Stalin's Holodomor. Higher IQ people do things more efficiently as seen below:

"He called the method of mass killing he invented Sardinenpackung. As Meier describes, it involved forcing victims to lie together face down and side and side and killing them with Genickschussen, then forcing the next group of victims who preceded them to form another layer, ignoring the victims; terror and horror in the interest of efficiently filling up the killing pit. Jeckeln's despicably cruel execution protocols destroys SS claims, during and after the war that its executions were 'correct' military-style executions of partisans. Himmler's goal was mass murder.. By the end of August 1941, commanding the Kommandostab SS First Brigade in the western Ukraine, Jeckeln had personally supervised the murder of more than 44,000 human beings, the largest total of Jews murdered by any of Himmler's virulent legions that month."
-- Richard Rhodes. Masters of Death: The SS-Einsatzgruppen .. 2002

"I went out to the woods alone. The Wehrmacht had already dug a grave. The children were brought along in a tractor-drawn wagon. I had nothing to do with this technical procedure. The Ukrainians were standing round trembling. The children were taken down from the tractor. They were lined up along the top of the grave and shot so that they fell into it. The Ukrainians did not aim at any particular part of the body. They fell into the grave. The wailing was indescribable. I shall never forget the scene throughout my life. I find it very hard to bear. I particularly remember a small fair-haired girl who took me by the hand. She too was shot later.. The grave was near some woods. IT was not near the firing range. The execution must have taken place in the afternoon at about three-thirty or four.. Many children were hit four or five times before they died." -- Richard Rhodes. Masters of Death: The SS-Einsatzgruppen .. 2002 p. 135

A number of "HBD" apologists have attempted to downplay or minimize the murder of Jews by converting them to a "daily death rate" going back to 1933, when Hitler began to consolidate power. By extending the time frame back several years, then dividing the days into total murdered Jews, less Jewish victims can be counted in a "daily average." Presto! Less murdered Jeewz in 2 seconds.. But this is ludicrous sleight of hand. For one thing the mass killings known as the Holocaust did not begin in 1933. As credible historians show, they began in December 1941, giving the Nazis 3.5 years of good killing work or approximately 1300 days. Looking at an actual scholarly book, rather than doctored Wikipedia "stealth" references- one credible study notes:

"In autumn 1941, the first German Jews to be deported at the spearhead of the combing out process of European Jewery was dispatched to the Warthegau. The possibility of liquidating ghettoised Jews had by then been explicitly raised for the forst time, in the summer of 1941, significantly by Nazi leaders in Warthegau. The first mobile gassing units to be deployed against Jews operated in the Warthegau in the closing month is if 1941. And the systematic murder of the Jews began in early December 1941 in the first extermination- actually a 'gas van station' - established at Chelmno on the Ner..."
FROM: Ian Kershaw. 2008. Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution. p 60:

And it's not only 6 million Jews but another 5 million Poles, Slavs, prisoners of war and other sub-humans who were systematically murdered. 11 million murdered souls over 3.5 years or 1300 days gives an impressive rough average of 8,461 bodies per day.

Then there is the systematic Holodomor- the brutal collectivization and liquidations engineered by Stalin, which impacted wide swathes of Russia. Credible estimates put the toll over the Soviet Union at 10 million during just one year -1932/33 (Wädekin et al. 1982. Agrarian Policies in Communist Europe. pg 16) and this does not count other millions from mass deportations and executions) --working out to approximately 27,397 per day murdered in just that year.

Whether Holocaust, or Holodomor, or the brutal statistics far exceed anything in human history in terms of sheer demonic viciousness and cruelty- and its all courtesy of those -oh so much better than the rest of us- high IQ folk.

Higher IQ jihadists etc. Moving to recent decades, Krueger 2008 shows in fine detail (with hard data from think tanks, government reports, economic surveys, academic studies, etc) that violent political extremists like terrorists are not the ignorant roughnecks of popular yore, but on the average, people with IQ indicators above the norm- typically, highly educated, professionally employed, from a middle- or higher-class background. Indeed Krueger's data shows that if there is a link between poverty, education and terrorism, it is the opposite of the one popularly assumed. (Alan Krueger (2008) What Makes a Terrorist: Economics and the Roots of Terrorism.)

To be sure, people with such characteristics, which are on the average are strong to moderately stronger indicators of a higher level of IQ , cannot be everywhere to carry out their violent extremist projects. They must mobilize and motivate servitors, flunkies and hatchet men to do some of the dirty work. But the data indicates that much of the leadership and drive behind this dirty work, is located in higher IQ segments of populations.

Even killer Chairman Mao, the archetypal "agrarian reformer" (and mass murderer contributing to some 40-70 million deaths) was not the average rural peasant bumpkin. To the contrary. Mao was the son of a wealthy farmer in Hunan, and was educated and literate, even enrolling in a teacher's school (seen as one of the best in the province) after his secondary education was completed. Mao also attended university, a very untypical pattern well above the bulk of the rural Chinese masses. In local terms Mao was an educated intellectual, and viewed himself as such.

Marx/Lenin: high IQ heroes of mass murdering communism. Lenin likewise was born to a wealthy middle-class family in Simbirsk, with well educated parents, (his mother a Jewish intellectual), earning a law degree. Engels was the son of a wealthy German cotton manufacturer and his extensive writing skills after secondary school suggest high literacy and relative IQ above average. Marx was also born into a wealthy middle-class family, studying at both the University of Bonn and the University of Berlin. Ancestrally he was of Ashkenazi Jewish background.

Herr Hitler- educated to a fair level. Hitler did not grow up in a poor family though they were of modest means- but even he too was educated to the secondary level, and could take up such things as painting. His verbal and organizing skills suggests one with above average IQ, as does the history of some of his prominent collaborators- Joseph Goebbels, Hermann Göring, Heinrich Himmler, Albert Speer. Goebbels for example earned a PhD from Heidelberg University, Himmler was from a middle class family and attended college, as did master of armaments Albert Speer. All of these were ahead in educational exposure relative to the times.

Mass murderer Josef Stalin- educated above average. Stalin was, unlike the average rural Russian type, both educated and literate, and even received a scholarship to attend and did attend the Georgian Orthodox Tiblis Spiritual Seminary in Tbilisi. While not as advanced educationally in local terms as Mao, Marx or his one-time boss Lenin, Stalin was above the average Russian peasant, and his efficient organizing skills as well as verbal facility indicates and IQ above average.

In short, the men who set the stage for, and drive forward the greatest mass murders, and some of the most suffering and brutality in human history, had IQ indicators above the average for their societies and their times.

Thus the final irony. There are many who are all too happy to use IQ as a club to bash “lesser breeds” – but as it turns out, their own almighty IQ construct, Great Source Of All, is associated with a class of leading folk that in many ways undermine and displace traditional values. The "cognitive elite" so touted in many quarters tends to be: --More liberal/leftist and/or collectivist in orientation which would include Nazism --More atheist/skeptical of, or hostile to faith --More gay/cross-gender/willing to experiment sexually and/or blur gender lines --More historically extreme and violent politically (two sides of the same violent coin -Marxism and Fascism and their key leadership)
And as other posts show-the much touted higher IQ folk are not reproducing themselves on the average. (http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2014/07/irony-2-higher-iqs-correlated-with_25.html)

And these characteristics in many ways produce fallout that bodes ill for the conservative America many HBDers and "hereditarians" say they want. Why are people like Charles Murray (and various other "hereditarian" types) complaining when their "high G" favorites are those in the forefront of helping white America "come apart" (to borrow from the title of Murray's book)? Didn't he celebrate these people earlier? Those high IQ paragons?
They worship the IQ gods, and the IQ deities have served up exactly what will undermine them. Surely their gods must be laughing.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

"In those days, if
you were black, you were starting,"
--Connie Hawkins on the NBA's "informal" white quota designed to keep out better qualified, more talented black players so whites could have more slots..

Came across this excellent analysis by conservative Ron Unz, showing that elite
white universities discriminate against Asians using reverse "affirmative
action" to keep out "too many" Asians. This phenomenon has been
largely swept under the rug by white elites and Asians compradors, but the
average Asian parent raised protests when California state
policy threatened recently to restore AA "quotas" that freeze out
Asians.

This pattern is reminiscent of what blacks endured in the early
NBA. As credible histories show, on into the 1960s NBA teams used
"informal" white quotas to limit the number of blacks playing, with
the result that more talented, more skillful, harder working black players were
frozen out of lineups so lesser whites could get team slots. Sometimes the
"informal" white quotas extended to starting lineups. As old-line NBA
legend Connie "The Hawk" Hawkins said on his biography: "In those days, if
you were black, you were starting," going on to say that team rosters that
could have been filled with good black players, were reserved for more mediocre
whites and only a few black "stars" were allowed- in starting lineups.

It was a shrewd strategy. How could anyone make a discrimination
case if you had 1 or 2 black guys starting? As team owners figured out, few
people looked at the bench and at depth charts. Elite white colleges and their
supporters have used a similar "rope a dope" obfuscation strategy. The
quota systems so obsessed over by the white masses have a dual purpose. It is
not merely handing a few quota slots to blacks and browns (note there are those
blacks and browns who don't need quotas by the way), but quota systems also
LIMIT the number of better qualified Asians, to the benefit of white people. And
the real good bonus about this strategy is that the spotlight can be turned on
black scapegoats if things get ugly.

Unz's analysis is solid - as the excerpt below indicates. The full
article is shown here:

<> BEGIN EXCERPT----------------------------

Asian Quotas in the Ivy League? "We See Nothing! Nothing!"

By Ron Unz, May 27, 2014

Democrats in the California State Legislature had unanimously
backed SCA-5, a proposed 2014 ballot measure intended to repeal Prop. 209 and
thereby restore Affirmative Action, banned in 1996. Since the 1990s, California had
effectively become a one-party Democratic state, and many expected the voters
would roll back that controversial legacy of the Pete Wilson Era. Every Asian
in the Legislature is a Democrat and every Asian had supported the repeal without
hesitation.

But once word of the proposal filtered out into the general Asian-American
community, massive opposition spontaneously erupted, and within three weeks
nearly 120,000 Asians had signed an electronic petition denouncing the proposal.
Their intense hostility centered on the restoration of racially-conscious
admissions policies for the prestigious state university system, reflecting
their widespread belief that this would eventually result in the establishment
of “Asian Quotas,” denying Asian students an equal chance for admission to
public universities.

When over a hundred thousand individuals unexpectedly join a
grassroots protest, politicians pay attention and within a few days every Asian
legislator had reversed course and declared opposition to the measure. California
Asians are a core Democratic constituency, usually backing that party’s
candidates in the 75% range, and the stunned Democratic leadership quickly
tabled the suddenly divisive proposal, which threatened to split their electoral
base.

During the weeks that have followed, liberal advocates of
Affirmative Action policies argued that Asian-American fears of a looming Asian
Quota were totally mistaken, the product of dishonest conservative propaganda
and misleading coverage in the ethnic media. Indeed, these were exactly the
arguments advanced by two of my fellow panelists, OiYan Poon of LoyolaUniversity and Robert Teranishi of UCLA. But although my presentation did
not focus on the particulars of the recent California
controversy, I think I demonstrated the underlying roots of the concern that
had so galvanized the Asian community.

In late 2012 I had published The Myth of American Meritocracy, a
lengthy critique of the admissions policies of America’s elite academic institutions. One of my central points was the
overwhelming statistical evidence for the existence of “Asian Quotas” at
Harvard, Yale, and the other elite Ivy League schools.

Over the last twenty years, America’s population of college-age
Asians has roughly doubled and Asian academic achievement has reached new
heights, but there has been no increase whatsoever in Asian enrollment in those
elite universities and indeed substantial declines at Harvard and several other
Ivies. Meanwhile, other top colleges such as Caltech that admit students based
on a strictly meritocratic and objective standard have seen Asian numbers increase
fully in line with the growth of the Asian population. These results were
summarized in one of my graphs, soon afterward republished in a contentious New
York Times symposium inspired by my findings.

AsianEnrollmentTrends

(The public ethnic and gender enrollment history for Harvard and
every other American university is now conveniently available on our website).

Ivy League schools admit their students by a totally opaque and
subjective process, only somewhat related to academic performance or other
objective factors, and leading American journalists such as Pulitzer-Prize
winner Daniel Golden have documented the powerful evidence that this system is
laced with favoritism and even outright corruption. In recent years, Asian
enrollments at all the Ivies have converged to a very narrow range and remained
relatively constant from year to year, a remarkably suspicious result that
seems strongly suggestive of an implicit Asian Quota. Indeed, the statistical
evidence for a present-day Asian Quota is arguably stronger than that for the
notorious Jewish Quota of the Ivies during the 1920s and 1930s, the existence
of which was widely denied at the time by university administrators but is now
universally accepted.

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, there had been widespread
accusations of a similar policy of anti-Asian bias in admissions at the University of California system, but the passage of Prop. 209 outlawed the use of racial
factors in admissions, and recent statistics indicate that Asian students are
now admitted to leading UC campuses closely in line with their academic
performance and without any numerical ceiling on their numbers. Asian parents
in California can see with their own two eyes obvious evidence of an Asian
Quota at most of America’s top national universities leading to their deep
concern that a similar policy might eventually return to the University of
California campuses.

Furthermore, Asian elected officials, Asian activists, and most
Asian-American advocacy groups have kept silent on the likely existence of
Asian Quotas at elite universities, thereby squandering any credibility they
might have had during the contentious California debate. My
own long article ran over eighteen months ago and despite its original
publication in a magazine with a tiny circulation, quickly accumulated over 200,000
pageviews while the analysis was soon widely discussed in the New York Times
and numerous other prominent publications. Indeed, Times columnist David Brooks
ranked the piece as perhaps the best American magazine article of the year. But
not a single Asian officeholder or traditional advocacy group took any notice
or made any effort to hold the Ivies accountable on a matter of greatest
concern to their own community.

In my writings, I have repeatedly noted that although the Ivies
freely release their ethnic admissions and ethnic enrollment statistics, they
refuse to release their ethnic application totals, data which is freely
provided by the University of California and other universities. I strongly suspect that the reason for
such reticence is that admission rates for Asians have plummeted relative to
all other groups during the last twenty years, a necessary consequence of a
determined effort to sharply restrict Asian numbers even while the Asian
population has doubled. Asian elected officials or prominent activists could
easily apply enormous pressure on the Ivies to release this simple data, but
not a single one has chosen to do so.

Such timidity is far from surprising. Most prominent Asian activists
are either affiliated with universities or have close ties with individuals who
are. Regularly denouncing the perceived misdeeds of “white supremacists,” rightwingers,
or even merely Republicans is an easy position to take given that those groups
possess negligible influence within the academic community. But HarvardUniversity and its peers dominate higher education like a colossus, and
leveling criticism against such targets is hardly conducive to academic career
advancement. Thus Asians found in ethnic studies departments readily seek out
the most obscure and insignificant examples of anti-Asian discrimination in
throughout the wider world but remain totally silent about the massively
visible biases in the most prestigious portions of their own academy.

To date, the stonewalling of the Ivies on this issue has largely
succeeded and the entire topic has disappeared from the mainstream media and
public discussion, although ordinary Asians remain just as unhappy as ever
about the obvious racial discrimination their children face in applying to most
elite universities. Unless either the media or prominent political figures
begin putting pressure on Harvard and its fellow elite universities to reveal
their ethnic admissions rates, I see no likelihood that this situation will
change. And ordinary Asian families will become more and more doubtful that
their interests are being represented either in government or in the media. Hence
the backlash over SCA-5.

Unz's analysis helps explain the mystery of why white universities would SEEMINGLY "hurt" white student admissions with so-called "quotas for blacks" and other non-Asian minorities. Assorted "HBD" types explain it all as evil "liberal do-goodism" and "white guilt" or "self-hate." But a true "race realist understands the REAL white game. While knee-jerk head count admissions may have begun as a "response" to ghetto unrest and activism in the 1960/ 1970s, those times are long gone, and in any event were closely controlled and limited. White people today are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. The so-called "quotas for blacks" are a smokescreen whites may be using to LIMIT ASIAN NUMBERS, via admission formulas that allow whites to gain slots on things other than strict test scores.

For example, lets say you get extra points for "community service"or "civic engagement." While all those
Asian kids are grinding away and going to cram schools solely for the best test score number, the extra points given for "civic engagement" will favor whites, who typically, on the average, can show more of such extracurricular activity. These extra point can tip an admission slot towards a more "well rounded" white candidate, beating out the Asian with a higher number. "Community service" might be only one such "tipping" factor. There are other factors that weigh in college admissions- including Essay writing, Teacher recommendation, Counselor recommendation, Class rank, Portfolio, Extracurricular activities, Work and so on. These factors have helped SOME black candidates build up enough points for admission, but they ALSO work in favor of whites to cut back on Asian slots. Think about it. Why would white people be so incredibly generous as to hurt their own via this wave of "black quotas" alleged by assorted right wingers? They aren't- for 3 reasons:

1) The number of black students admitted under quotas is small and AA quotas have been carefully controlled and limited since the 1970s eg. Bakke.As noted in earlier posts, there is no vast horde of blacks on campus due to "quotas" and quotas are primarily operative on high-end campuses with very few minorities. (Gurin et al 2003. How does Racial/Ethnic Diversity Promote Education? WJBS. 27:1) found that affirmative action exists primarily in hifghly selective colleges that barely have more than 8-10% black students. Such campuses are not where the vast majority, the OTHER 90-92% of black students attend. The famous Hopwood decision of the late 1990s showed that in 1996-97- right before the AA ban by the court, Black enrollments weighed in at an allegedly "massive" 4.7%, of the total enrollment at the elite Texas Law school- hardly the huge wave "swamping white people" assorted propagandists would have us to believe.
And keep in mind that not all blacks admitted to these schools needed quotas. In short, as far as college educations, affirmative action is a minor player for blacks. As far as teachers, affirmative action has been a rather small player there too:

"The catastrophic scenarios conjured by the
neo-conservatives and the [Jewish] agencies never came to pass. In fact between
1968 and 1973, blacks' share of total university faculty jobs grew from 2.2 to
2.9 percent; with historically black colleges and universities removed from the
calculations, blacks made up only 0.9 percent of the professoriate. Over the
next twenty years, black representation among full-time faculty members grew
only .05 percent."
-- Mark Major (2010) "Where Do We Go From here,"

2) Admission "point" systems allegedly "helping only" blacks are MORE helping whites, by enabling them to bypass and squeeze ahead of Asians who may post better raw numbers. Unz's analysis suggests that certain elite institutions can manipulate a variety of factors, not because of "guilt" or "self-hate" but to help whites edge out the Asian competition- you know- via that prototypical "well rounded" candidate. Translation: less "narrow" Asian grinders on campus. A similar pattern operated to screen out Jews in years past.

3) Blacks can be used as front-men and scapegoats for the above- taking the heat from assorted bigots, bashers and baiters. In the meantime, behind the scenes, the admission structures are manipulated to hinder or slow down the real competition- Asians.

Assorted hereditarians continually express amazement and puzzlement at why whites are allegedly "hurting themselves" with so-called "giveways to blacks." It makes for a great propaganda narrative- an enemy "Other "to focus anger on- red meat for "the faithful" to fulminate against "the liberals" and "self-hate." But that narrative is for the gullible. As Synnott 2010 below shows- for whites the real competition is Asians, and "Affirmative action" helps cut back on Asians in favor of white alumni/legacy admits. These legacy admits generally perform below regular admittees. If strict merit was used for admissions, many more white people would never make it, and more slots would be taken up by Asians.

Of course its not only the gullible in the mix. Also there are cynical propagandists who know the real facts, but keep churning out distortions and "fake news" to screen the real deal- white profit and benefit. It is like the massive amounts of new government spending that went to schools during the desegregation era. Most of it was pocketed by white school regimes that quickly fired hundreds of black teachers and tore down numerous once thriving black schools - end result: more cash, more facilities and more jobs for mostly white people as the federal largesse flowed. When the full picture is examined, and the easy propaganda narratives broken down, are white people really "hurting" themselves or helping themselves?